grove_flag

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description supplements this with important behavioral details: the write permission required, the default sender identity, and the relay permission for a different identity. It does not detail behavior when flags already exist, but given annotations, this is adequate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short lines plus an args list. Every sentence provides necessary information, and the most critical information (action and permission) is front-loaded. No waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has 4 parameters and no output schema. The description covers 3 parameters and provides the enum values for flag, which is good. But the missing app_id explanation is a gap, and there is no description of return values or side effects. It is usable but not fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It does explain message_id, flag (including allowed values), and sender (default and permission nuance). However, it completely omits the app_id parameter, which appears in the schema with a default but no description, leaving an agent to guess its purpose.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Set a flag on a message.' It is immediately clear what the tool does and is distinct from sibling grove_unflag, which removes a flag. The list of flag values further clarifies the action.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context: it is used to set a flag, and it states permission requirements ('Requires grove_write' and 'A different identity requires grove_relay'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like grove_unflag or mention when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.